Maybe it has to do with the precedent set by Ministry of Education (MOE) when they allowed their scholar Jonathan Wong to teach in a Secondary School in July 2010 despite being arrested for possession and making of child pornography in the United Kingdom earlier in March. MOE's lame excuse was: “His offence only came to light after he was charged in court in November.” NUS has to come up with something more credible.
An NUS spokesman said that the university has a code of conduct that its staff must adhere to. But the one on its website makes no clear reference to staff, only how students should behave.
According to The New Paper, the teacher-student arrangement was not a one-off liaison dangereuse, Tey had sex with the 23 year old female on multiple occasions. Elsewhere it is reported that the student approached Tey first for a better grade in the elective he taught. As we saw in the case of another high profile sex-for-gratification case, "obtain" and "accept" could be crucial words to determine the legal outcome. In other words, there's still wriggle room. Heck, defence might demand the equivalent of a Monica Lewinsky stained dress as irrevocable proof of wrong doing.
What boggles the mind about this blowout is that it involves a law professor, a student studying law, and shenanigans in the law faculty - do they actually teach law, or sex-ed? Instead of producing legal eagles, they seem to be churning out legal beavers. We should ask the Law Society for a comment, but those guys have their hands full with members acting on their own volition.